Draft Minutes South East mac 5

Action 3 – AFMA Management

AFMA to develop a paper reviewing historic closures across all SESSF gear sectors for SEMAC 13.

Old Action 6 That AFMA request GABRAG and/or GABMAC review the GABTF trigger for Western Gemfish in light of recent assessment advice (whole stock RBC) and the shared nature of the stock

The Executive Officer provided background on this matter and noted the split in management arrangements for Western Gemfish across the SESSF and the GABTF and advised that the responsibility for undertaking the stock assessment for this species was vested with GAB RAG.

The Chair noting this had been a sensitive matter before the MAC sought the GAB Invited participant’s perspective. The GAB participant recalled that the action had been agreed with himself, the trawl and auto-longline members absenting themselves from the meeting prior to the recommendation being agreed.

The GAB participant’s view was that the Tier 1 assessment was an improvement over past Tier 4 approaches but that it was important to be cognisant of the assumptions (and potential uncertainties) underlying the assumption to treat Western Gemfish as one stock. The GAB participant recognised that SEMAC had limited preparation time given the tabling of the assessment report at the TAC meeting. The MAC noted that, since SEMAC 11, FRDC had supported a research proposal to investigate the stock structure of Western Gemfish. The GAB participant agreed that it was important to review what was happening on both sides of the line but it was equally important not to place too much weight on the single stock assumption.

The GAB participant indicated that the MAC needed to tread carefully given that AFMA would eventually need to implement an allocation of this species between the two fisheries. The participant recalled advice flowing from an AFMA paper to both GABMAC and SEMAC that AFMA consider issuing an investment warning in relation to Western Gemfish. The MAC asked the Executive Officer to circulate the relevant section form the previous minutes.

Mr Bromley advised that AFMA had not issued an investment warning. The AFMA member agreed it was a key issue and welcomed news that FRDC had supported the research proposal.

Action 4 – Executive Officer

Executive Officer to circulate the section containing the SEMAC’s discussion on the potential need for a cross fishery allocation of the Western Gemfish resource.

Old Action 7 Circulate Dr Thomson’s (CSIRO) hook selectivity analysis when it is completed and cleared by SharkRAG.

The AFMA member advised that SharkRAG hadn’t convened a face to face meeting since SEMAC 11. The MAC noted that CSIRO had supplied a draft of the selectivity analysis and this would be discussed during Agenda Item 4.1 GHaT Future Directions.

Action 6 – AFMA Management

Circulate Dr Thomson’s (CSIRO) hook selectivity analysis when it is completed and cleared by SharkRAG.

Action 15 SETFIA to develop a basic Code of Conduct for Deepwater Sharks

Mr Boag (speaking in his capacity as SETFIA EO) firstly acknowledged the support from SEMAC, AFMA and CSIRO in working with industry to one up grounds to allow trawlers to spread their fishing effort out. Mr Boag noted that closure was intended to protect Orange Roughy and he believed the vessels concerned could fish in that area without catching Orange Roughy. Mr Boag added that the operators involved had provided assurance that they would not target Orange Roughy.

Mr Boag envisaged it would be similar to the Blue Warehou Code that was recently provided to the MAC i.e. a two page document that could be laminated and displayed in wheelhouses but indicated a bit more work was needed before it could be cleared through SETFIA.

Action 6 – Trawl member

Trawl Industry member to update SEMAC on the Code of Conduct for Deepwater Sharks.

Action 16 AFMA to seek out of session comments on the SAFE assessment and the draft residual risk for the SESSF gear sectors

The auto-longline industry member was concerned with the process that allowed errors in the SAFE Assessment to make it through to a final version. The member sought direction from AFMA on how it intended to address this because he considered it very important that significant factual errors would compromise the upcoming strategic assessment of the fishery (EPBC Act accreditation).

The member noted that report indicated that the auto-longline sector had caught 65 seals which was completely wrong and was the sort of ‘information’ that was very hard to manage once it was in the public arena.

The AFMA member indicated that there was a project underway looking at Ecological Risk Assessment (ERAs) and Ecological Risk Management (ERM) documents and considered that this should provide the scope to seek corrections to the SAFE assessment.

The MAC noted that Dr Knuckey (invited scientific participant) had raised a number of queries at the last MAC meeting which needed also to be formally referred to CSIRO.

The auto-longline member emphasised that the status of the SAFE assessment should be downgraded to a draft.

Action 7 – AFMA, SEMAC members

(a) Members to provide additional comments on the SAFE assessment to AFMA Management.

(b) AFMA to formally request that CSIRO review the SAFE Report in relation to queries identified by SESSF RAG and SEMAC.

2State of the fishery

2.1Industry reports

Commonwealth Trawl - Offshore Constitutional Settlement with New South Wales

The trawl member provided the MAC on SETFIA’s perspective on the unexpected relaxation of NSW state trip limits for Flathead. The Committee welcomed advice that New South Wales had acted quickly to reverse the decision.

Members noted that New South Wales was the only state adjacent to the SESSF which did not have a contemporary Memorandum of Understanding underlying the Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) agreement with the Commonwealth to manage areas of commercial fisheries overlap. Members noted that addressing this shortcoming had been identified in the Borthwick review and in the Independent Review of NSW Commercial Fisheries Policy, Management and Administration¹ by Stevens et al.

The trawl member acknowledged the support of the Commonwealth Minister, conservation NGOs and recreational fishing groups in sorting the NSW shared species matter out at least in the short term. The trawl member noted that the upside of this was recognition by Commonwealth and State departments that it was time the broader issue was addressed. The MAC agreed with this view noting that the lack of a functional OCS and associated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with NSW confounded assessment and management processes for a range of species and gear sectors in both jurisdictions.

The Committee noted a suggestion from the conservation member that the Commonwealth commercial sector, the Conservation NGOs and the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW consider developing a joint letter to both the Commonwealth and state ministers encouraging resolution of this issue urgently. The MAC noted that while the stakeholders held different positions on a number of matters there seemed to be common ground in relation to the status of the OCS.

The Chair noted that in his view it was really unfortunate that the terms ‘state fishermen’ and ‘Commonwealth fishermen’ had become established in the lexicon when in reality they were all Australian operators who landed fish into the same ports.

Action 8 – Conservation member, industry members, recreational member

Conservation member to canvass conservation NGOs, industry and recreational peak bodies to gauge their interest in relation to developing a joint submission to the Commonwealth and NSW fisheries ministers (and shadow ministers) urging attention be paid to fixing up the Offshore Constitutional Settlement agreement.

Supermarket fish procurement policy

The trawl member noted that Coles had announced it would only be sourcing sustainable fish from 2015. The MAC was concerned that the sustainability audits used to determine which species would be accepted were not made public. The Committee noted that WWF which was in a corporate partnership with Coles.

Orange Roughy survey

The MAC noted that AFMA had approved a 165 tonne (t) research catch allowance which will allow SETFIA to run an Acoustic Optical Survey (AOS) on eastern Orange Roughy in mid-July 2013. The trawl member noted that that New Zealand now relies on AOS surveys.

Training for trawl crew

The trawl member advised that with the support of the Australian Government’s Caring for our Country program that a second round of four TAFE accredited training courses had been completed in Lakes Entrance, Sydney and Ulladulla. The MAC noted that about forty fishers participated and passed the course.

Accreditation

The MAC noted news that Petuna Sealord Deepwater Fishing had appointed SGS Australia to assist with the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification for the winter Blue Grenadier fishery.

Shark sector

The shark industry member reported MAC noted that gillnet activity off South Australia remained low with some boats switching to demersal longlines. The shark member noted there were hook workshops scheduled for mid-June in Adelaide and Robe and was he was encouraging South Australian based shark fishers to attend the workshop.

The shark invited participant noted that Gummy Shark catches in the east had been variable but noted this was part of normal seasonal variability. The Committee noted widespread industry concern over changes to the 10 kilogram take home pack which industry would like to see the ability to take fish home retained. This view was endorsed by the shark industry member.

The AFMA member noting that similar concerns had been raised directly when AFMA staff visited Lakes Entrance recently. The AFMA member explained that it was essentially a compliance issue related to having fish on board a boat that was not accounted for under normal processes and to try and establish consistency across fisheries. Industry noted that under the current policy take home packs would have to be unloaded through a fish receiver which added complexity and at times costs to what was traditionally a simple arrangement. The MAC noted that some Coops still charged a processing fee even for fish destined for home consumption.

The MAC encouraged AFMA to pursue a more workable mechanism.

GAB Trawl Fishery

Mr Moore (GAB invited participant) noted that it had been a difficult year in the GAB due to a drop in the availability of shelf associated species and because prices had been a bit depressed. The MAC noted however that when the Lakes Entrance Coop started to run out of Flathead quota the price for Deepwater Flathead improved markedly.

The MAC noted that GABIA had reaffirmed its position on its equal allocation agreement across the GAB endorsements and that this policy also applied to attribution of management costs (levies) and research outside of the levybase. The MAC was pleased to note that Mr Jim Raptis had been elected as President of GABIA and Mr Moore had been reappointed as Executive Officer (part time basis).

The GAB invited participant outlined the GAB’s schedule for stock assessments and Fishery Independent Surveys (FISs) and suggested that striking a balance on the risk, cost catch framework was a matter worthy of attention by SEMAC and SESSF RAG. Mr Moore suggested the rollover of the very expensive stock assessment contract on an annual basis was a potential area for reform and more transparency. The AFMA member indicated that costs had been reduced in this area.

Mr Moore noted GABIA’s view on cost recovery arrangement for FISs was that these should attract 20% Government contribution as there were clearly broader public benefits from regular surveys. The MAC noted this issue was being advanced by joint AFMA/Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) Working Group.

Mr Moore, speaking in his capacity as GABIA Executive Officer, noted that GABIA’s view was the GAB was in a different Bioregion and that most of the issues in were not related to the SESSF and a such there was a sound argument for retaining GABMAC. GAB participant indicated that cross fishery dialogue was very valuable and that could be maintained with invited participant status on SEMAC. The auto-longline member endorsed this view and saw no merit in the GAB being rolled into the ‘SuperMAC’ and suggested that AFMA might wish to consider a reciprocal arrangement for an invited participant from the SESSF being appointed to GABMAC.

The GAB invited participant encouraged SEMAC to try and elevate more strategic discussions on its agenda.

Listing of Upper Slope Dogfish

Dr Rayns confirmed that the Minister for the Environment has listed Harrisson’s Dogfish and Southern Dogfish as conservation dependent and that the nomination of trawl fishing as a key threatening process had been declined. The MAC noted that formal advice on the listings was anticipated.

Auto-longline sector

The auto-longline member advised that the sector was facing a perfect storm as a result of loss of access to the Coral Sea and eastern seamounts (Commonwealth Marine Reserves) which basically meant fishing north of latitude 30^o south. The member noted the loss of productive Blue-eye Trevalla grounds around Flinders Island as a result of Gulper Shark closures. The MAC noted that as a result of this the auto-longline fleet would have to shift its effort on Blue-eye Trevalla to the eastern continental slope. This would however be problematic as experience has shown there will be a significant bycatch of Pink Ling - which under normal circumstances would be covered by quota. The auto-longline member noted that the anticipated measures to reduce the catch of Pink Ling in the east would threaten the sector’s viability because this could prevent them fishing their Blue-eye entitlements. The member explained that the vessels still experienced a bycatch of Pink Ling despite having their gear configured differently to target for Blue-eye Trevalla (hooks floated off the bottom a bit).

The auto-longline member welcomed AFMA’s commitment to review historic closures in the SESSF. The member noted that the GHaT Future Directions Working Group had recommended investigating lifting the restriction on auto-longline vessels fishing the Cascade Plateau because the original reasons for applying the closure were no longer relevant. The member noted that opening the Cascade Plateau would provide an avenue for the auto-longline sector to fish a proportion of their Blue-eye Trevalla holdings away from slope habitat where Pink Ling was a companion species.

The auto-longline member expressed interest in any opportunities through gear handling (i.e. brake lining) that might allow hook access in the north of the fishery. The member noted that these methods fell within the existing auto-longline permit parameters.

2.2Recreational sector report

The recreational invited participant advised that AFMA had scheduled a workshop with recreational sector representatives on 20 June 2013 as part of its response to the Borthwick Review which recommended closer engagement with the sector.

The recreational participant noted that New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI) had proposed a 50% reduction in the bag limits across a range of species and particularly those that were shared between the recreational and commercial sectors. The participant considered that the discussion paper didn’t include enough scientific rationale for the proposed reductions.

The MAC noted that the NSW State-wide Recreational Fishing Survey 2013-14 was scheduled to commence on 1 July 2013 for a 12 month period. The recreational participant explained that the survey design involved large screening survey which would be done by phone and a subsample of those screened would be invited to keep fishers diaries.

The MAC noted that NSW DPI had now implemented zero take requirements for Harrisson’s Dogfish and Southern Dogfish and a precautionary bag limit of two for other dogfish species.

The recreational participant indicated that the NSW Baitfish Working Group appeared to have stalled. The participant explained this Group was working to resolve conflicts associated with the collection of bait by Commonwealth tuna fishers (own use) noting that some tuna vessels had access under NSW Section 37 permits and others didn’t. The MAC noted that this was a complex matter with access to small pelagic species being important to recreational sector, the NSW Ocean Hauling Fishery, the tuna fleet (own use provisions) and operators in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery.

The recreational participant noted additional research work in relation to improving DEPM survey would be being undertaken by SARDI with funding support from the FRDC.

The recreational participant concluded by noting that recreational fishing had generally being good.

2.3Protected Species Interactions

The MAC Chair indicated that he had decided to elevate this item on the agenda to ensure that it wasn’t consigned to the usually compressed closing minutes of the meeting. The AFMA member noted advice from the scientific member suggesting reviews of logbook data were useful but that there were limitations associated with summaries of raw data. The AFMA member indicated that obtaining trends from logbook data would be sensitive to distribution of effort spatially and temporally and in particular to reporting rates for interactions. The MAC considered it was still useful to review the data and welcomed the preparation of maps and considered that this could help identify emerging issues.

Mr Clayton McCloud (AFMA Environment Section) presented the logbook data and indicated that the summary tables and maps should be viewed a snapshots for each sector. Mr McCloud also explained AFMA’s reporting mechanisms to SEWPaC and noted these reports were posted on AFMA’s website.

Mr McCloud noted there were different reporting mechanisms for listed migratory shark species (Shortfin Makos, Porbeagles) between the trawl sector and longline and gillnet sectors.

The auto-longline member asked what constituted an interaction. Mr Gerner (AFMA) clarified and noted that interactions were defined as stress or harm caused by contact with fishing gear. Mr Gerner agreed to provide additional information for distribution to the Committee.

Action 9 – AFMA Bycatch Section

AFMA Bycatch Section to provide additional information on the definition of ‘interaction’ in the context of operators’ obligations to report interactions with protected species in their logbooks.

The MAC discussed the range of measures and initiatives in place to reduce interactions in various sectors and noted substantial progress in a number of areas. The discussion is summarised in Table 2.

The trawl member provided an update on the short codend trial on wet boats in the CTS. The MAC noted that there wasn’t the room on most of the trawl fleet to use conventional seal-excluder devices. The trawl member explained that SETFIA was working with AFMA’s Bycatch Section, with funding support from Exxon and Caring for Our Country, trialling nets with short codends against standard nets (controls) on a local trawler in the SESSF. The member explained that the shorter codend was thought to make it easier for seals that entered the net to get back out. The MAC noted that a fairly large sample size would be need before an analysis could be undertaken.

Mr Scott noted that further tuning of the seal excluder devices used on factory boats was going well. Mr Scott noted that the devices were now successful in preventing fur seals entering the net when it was being hauled and work was now focused on preventing seals getting in as the trawl net was being set. The MAC noted that if seals managed to enter the net before it descended there was a much higher risk of drowning. Mr Scott explained that they were now testing acoustic releases on net binding which, when triggered, allowed the mouth of the net to open at around 300m which was deeper than the fur seals could go to. The MAC noted that these devices were not (at this stage) portable to smaller wet boats.

The MAC agreed that a detailed discussion of seabird hook interactions be held over to Agenda Item 4.1 - GHaT Fishery Future Directions. The conservation member noted that the level of interactions has triggered the Longline Fishing Threat Abatement Plan triggers. The auto-longline member expressed concern that seabird interactions associated with the Gummy Shark auto-longline trial were included in the summary for the auto-longline sector and not separately against access associated with a research program (temporary permits). The member acknowledged that these were being treated separately in discussions between AFMA and SEWPaC but considered it important that presentations were also consistent with this separation of normal fishing activity and fishing activity associated with research projects.

The conservation member mentioned that the Humane Society International (HSI) was concerned about the apparent scale of reported interactions with Shortfin Makos between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2012²:

• 
  770 in the GHaT sector and 20 from the trawl sector
  
• 
  9,000 interactions across all Commonwealth fisheries.
  

The conservation member noted that HIS was concerned about this given limited understanding of this species population status. The auto-longline member noted that the recreational sector also caught this species and the Environment Minister had made special arrangements at the time of its listing on the EPBC Act which allow recreational anglers to still fish for these sharks.

The MAC noted a couple of unusual circumstances:

• 
  Two Australian Sea-lions (ASLs) and a fur seal reported hooked on hand set demersal longlines (the ASLs were reported as being released alive).
  
• 
  A Hawksbill Turtle reported as being caught on auto-longline gear (the Committee noted it was possible the crew misidentified the turtle’s species identification).
  

The MAC recognised that detailed analysis belonged with the RAGs and research institutions who were able to compare logbook data with observer data and consider other factors like changes in populations of some protected species (like fur seals).

The conservation member thanked the Chair for promoting this matter on the agenda and thanked AFMA for the summary and noted it was important to regularly assess reported interactions in order to detect trends or areas where issues are emerging so we can respond before thresholds like the TAP limits are breached.

Table 1: Summary of SEMAC 12’s consideration of gear specific interactions

Sector	Issue	Mitigation measures/initiatives
Trawl CTS (wet boats)	Logbook reporting of fur seal interactions have been at around 80% of the scale suggested by extrapolations of observer data	A formal SETFIA project supported by AFMA and ExxonMobil is trialling shortened codends to reduce seal mortalities in the wet boat sector with the support of Caring for our Country and Exxon (approximately 150 shots (including controls) conducted to date). Wet boats are not big enough to be able to use Seal Excluder Devices (SEDs)
Trawl CTS (wet boats)	Seabird interactions with warps. The trawl member noted that these interactions can be difficult for skippers and crew to observe due to their cryptic nature.	The introduction of towed deterrents appears to be very effective in reducing seabird contacts with trawl warps. Recent work by SETFIA and AFMA has resulted in good compliance with Seabird Management Plans. Sprayers developed by industry members are yet to be reviewed.
Factory trawlers	Reliable reporting of fur seal interactions (100% observer coverage). Measure in place to exclude seals from codend on shooting and hauling. Industry working with New Zealand counterparts to mitigate entry of seals into the net during setting.	‘Net binding’ with acoustic releases to exclude seals from the net until the gear is 300 to 400 m below the surface. The MAC noted SED grids are effective in preventing fur seals entering the end of the net as it is hauled.
Gummy Shark auto-longline trial (inshore in SA)	Seabird interactions - Noted that seabird interactions in the auto-longline Gummy Shark significantly exceeded the TAP limit.	AFMA stopped the trial and implemented stronger mitigation requirements however these were not able to be tested within the time frame of the trial Caring for our country project with NZ seabird mitigation expert visiting Australia pending.
Auto-longline sector (outside 183m)	A lower level of seabird interactions occurred in the commercial auto-longline sector but still exceeded the TAP limit.	The auto-longline sector is redesigning their Tori lines to improve coverage of hooks entering the water and will use Brickle curtains when hauling. If improved Tori lines aren’t sufficient the use of weighted lines may be considered. Also a fishery wide response to the interactions is being developed (see page 11 below) and AFMA is ensuring timely monitoring of the rates of interaction under the TAP.
Gillnet sector	Australian Sea-lions closures have reduced ASL interactions off South Australia (effort decrease)	No ASL mortalities reported since March 2012.
Gillnet sector	Dolphin interactions ––there has been a lower level of interactions with dolphins than the rate which triggered the dolphin closure occurring across the fishery.	Research proposal for trialling acoustic deterrents being considered by AFMA. Industry have suggested further work is required on greater specification in relation to higher slinging ratios and increasing weighting on the footrope to tighten up nets. Consideration of lighter nets (smaller denier) to allow mammals to break free.
Gillnet sector	Shortfin Mako Sharks – concern noted over the apparent disparity in the proportion of White Sharks reported released alive compared to Makos released alive and the significant numbers of Makos that are now being reported.	No mitigation strategies discussed at the meeting. The conservation member noted that further action is needed to understand what impact these catches may be having on populations.